"LIKE AN ULTIMATUM”

Gisborne Herald, Volume LXVIII, Issue 20634, 14 August 1941, Page 9

"LIKE AN ULTIMATUM”

DIVORCE AGREEMENT A MAORI PETITIONER HIS HONOUR’S COMMENT “This sounds to me more like an ultimatum than an agreement,’’ said Mr. Justice Northcroit when hearing an application for a divorce in the Supreme Court in Gisborne to-day, the grounds of the petition being agreement to separate. Turangi Mauheni (Mr. G. J. Jeune), the petitioner, gave evidence that he and his wife, Matiria Te Whanaupani Mauheni, agreed to separate in November, 1937, after living at Rangitukia. Following a disagreement, he suggested that his wife should go to her parents’ home. “If she had refused to go would you have taken her?” asked His Honour. The petitioner replied that he would have done so. In further evidence, the petitioner said he had left New Zealand with the Maori Battalion and had returned to New Zealand after having been in England. Supporting evidence was given by the petitioner’s brother, Koha Mauheni. His Honour remarked that the case presented a difficulty because, on the petitioner’s statement, there hardly seemed to be a true agreement to separate, the agreement appearing to be more in the nature of an ultimatum. However, in the circumstances, having regard to the imperfect understanding of the position by the petitioner, he was prepared to accept the petition, and a decree nisi was granted, to be moved absolute in three months. Agreement to Separate A decree nisi also was granted Leonard Herbert Lionel Maclean, of Puha (Mr. A. J. Stock), in a petition against Dorothy Isabel Maclean on the grounds of an agreement to separate. The petitioner gave evidence that they were married in 1917, and after petitioner returned from the war they lived at Puha. They agreed to separate in 1933. Supporting evidence was given by Charles Granville Holdsworth. Like “Mohammet’s Coffin” A motion for a deci'ee absolute was granted to Herbert Swainson, respondent in the original proceedings (Mr. J. S. Wauchop), against Janet Swainson (Mr. L. T. Burnard), who opposed the motion. Mr. Burnard said the divorce proceedings were -based on an agreement to separate but the respondent was in arrears of payment of £1 10s a -vyeek. He suggested that the application should be postponed until the arrears were brought up to date. If the respondent married again, he would incur fresh obligations and make his client’s position more difficult. His Honour: And if he borrows the money to bring his obligations up to date, and he marries again, how much better off will he be? Mr. Wauchop said the divorce proceedings were commenced by the wife, and what the respondent had paid in costs for his wife and in subsequent costs in maintenance proceedings would very nearly total the amount due. His Honour: And he is very nearly a free man. Mr. Wauchop: Like Mohammet’s coffin —half-way. The decree absolute was granted. Master Mariner’s Petition William Alfred Sayer (Mr. L. T Burnard) was granted a decree nisi against Josephine Matilda Sayer (Mr. D. E. Chrisp) on the grounds of agreement to separate. The petitioner said he was a master mariner living in Auckland. He was married to the respondent on January 9, 1920, and they lived together until September, 1937. when he left Gisborne for Auckland. On April 2ti. 1938, they executed an agreement of separation. Mrs. Doreen Mavis Coleman, a daughter of the parties gave suoporting evidence. A decree nisi was granted to be moved absolute after three months.